Grievance Case Summary - G-434

In 2005, the Respondent approved a recommendation to initiate the process to medically discharge the Grievor. The Grievor filed a grievance objecting to this approval. The Case Manager referred to the file to Level I Adjudication on the issue of standing, but failed to offer either party the opportunity to make submissions on this issue. The Level I Adjudicator denied the grievance on the basis of a lack of standing.

At some point, the medical discharge process was abandoned. A new medical discharge process was initiated in 2006 and the Grievor grieved both the new recommendation to initiate the medical discharge and the new approval of that recommendation.

The Committee found that the grievance is moot, because the medical discharge process that followed the Respondent's recommendation was abandoned. The Committee also found that there were a number of procedural errors, most significantly that the parties were denied the right to be heard prior to the Level I decision, but also including unresolved questions related to disclosure, access to information and the Grievor's willingness to participate in early resolution discussions. These errors created unfairness in the process.

The Committee recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that the grievance be denied because it is moot. The Committee also recommended that the Commissioner apologize to the Grievor for the unfairness created by a number of procedural errors.

The Commissioner has rendered a decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

In a decision dated September 12, 2011, the Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Committee.

The Commissioner determined that the controversy between the parties ceased to exist and the grievance was moot, as the medical discharge process against the Grievor had been abandoned.

However, as there were errors committed by the Force in processing the grievance, the Commissioner addressed those issues, with a view to providing guidance for future files and instilling a sense of their importance on the parties to prospective grievances as well as those individuals who work within the grievance process.

Such errors included: (i) the failure of the Respondent to contact the Grievor respecting early resolution and the OCG to ensure she was given an opportunity to voice her opinion respecting early resolution in this matter; (ii) the failure of the Respondent to provide all documentation concerning the grievance and the OCG to ensure that disclosure was accurate or to refer the issue to Level I for a determination; and, (iii) the OCG’s forwarding of the file (along with another of the Grievor’s grievances) to Level I for a decision on the issue of standing without informing her that she had the right (or providing her an opportunity) to make submissions on the issue.

The Commissioner apologized to the Grievor for the unfairness created by the procedural errors in the processing of her grievance.